W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:47:19 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0907030947n2f69cfb6qb2ef436387944ab2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Thomas Phinney:
>
>  > > > There is a lot of talk to the effect that concerns TTF/OTF support
>  > > > will lead to "accidental piracy" are the main motivation for
>  > > > resistance to TTF/OTF. I am beginning to believe that that is not
>  > > > really the motivation but, rather, exclusion by incumbents against
>  > > > potential competitors is the driver.
>  > >
>  > > I support your analysis.
>  >
>  > Well, that "analysis" is simply wrong. Not to mention offensive, as it
>  > requires the assumption that all the font vendors who have discussed
>  > the issue are lying.
>
> I dont't think so. For one, there are two relevant markets: fonts and
> browsers. You seem to only to consider the font market?

Not *only*, but the original quote said "incumbents" (plural). If one
is only talking about the browser market, there is only one
EOT-supporting incumbent, which is Microsoft. So I presumed that
Thomas (and by extension you in supporting him) was referring to font
vendors, either alone or in conjunction with Microsoft. Thomas did not
correct me from that perception in my earlier response on the topic.

T
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 16:48:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT